Viewpoint: why variable pay-for-performance in healthcare can backfire
- 13 May 2014
- journal article
- Published by Emerald in Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship
- Vol. 2 (1), 120-123
- https://doi.org/10.1108/ebhrm-12-2013-0037
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this “viewpoint” is to consider the unintended consequences of variable pay and incentive schemes in healthcare environments. Design/methodology/approach – Reviews a series of side effects of incentives. Findings – The paper suggests that pay-for-performance schemes should be avoided. Originality/value – The area of public sector boards is undergoing considerable change in the UK and this paper, although preliminary, is one of the few to examine the links to motivation.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Unintended Consequence of Diabetes Mellitus Pay‐for‐Performance (P4P) Program in Taiwan: Are Patients with More Comorbidities or More Severe Conditions Likely to Be Excluded from the P4P Program?Health Services Research, 2010
- Systematic review: Effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health careBMC Health Services Research, 2010
- Pay for Performance in the Public Sector--Benefits and (Hidden) CostsJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2009
- Awards: A View from Psychological EconomicsSSRN Electronic Journal, 2008
- Personnel Psychology: Performance Evaluation and Pay for PerformanceAnnual Review of Psychology, 2005
- Remuneration: Where We've Been, How We Got to Here, What are the Problems, and How to Fix ThemSSRN Electronic Journal, 2004
- Motivation Crowding TheoryJournal of Economic Surveys, 2001
- The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of BehaviorPsychological Inquiry, 2000
- CEO INCENTIVES — IT'S NOT HOW MUCH YOU PAY, BUT HOW*Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 1990
- Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political ScienceAmerican Political Science Review, 1985